When King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) last month became Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) secretary-general, he spoke of “making the KMT a better party so that it will allow the public to embrace it.” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), meanwhile, who doubles as KMT chairman, said King would be the party’s “chief executive officer” in charge of implementing his agenda for party reform.
Just one month into the job, however, it has become clear that King’s clout extends beyond the KMT’s internal affairs. The KMT secretary-general has palpable influence over the executive and legislative arms of government.
Hours after King placed a call to Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) Minister Stephen Shen (沈世宏) on Thursday to express concern over the EPA’s plan to fine people who smoke while walking or riding on scooters, the EPA said it was rethinking the proposal.
Then, the Executive Yuan yielded to King’s KMT-proposed version of an amendment to the Local Government Act (地方制度法) even after legislators across party lines reached an initial consensus supporting the Executive Yuan’s version.
With the government still licking its wounds from the US beef fiasco, which pounded public confidence in Ma’s team, King’s actions are not helping re-establish the president’s image and authority.
King dismissed critics who said he was meddling with EPA policy, arguing that he simply conveyed public opinion to the government. “The party and government agencies should work together to address public complaints,” he said.
While few would disagree that politicians and government agencies have a responsibility to listen to public opinion, there are proper steps to convey public concerns that don’t undermine the Executive Yuan’s authority.
But this isn’t just about King. Shen’s backpedaling was unacceptable. Instead, he should have consulted Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and waited for his directive after taking up the matter at the weekly Cabinet meeting.
Wu, meanwhile, who had been sidestepped, then turned around and supported King, perhaps out of a feeling of obligation, saying that what King did was “normal.”
King’s action sets a bad precedent by showing disregard for the chain of command. The next time the executive branch is mulling a policy or drafting a bill, the ministers will look not only to the premier but also to King for a final nod.
The problem with meddling of this kind is that as a party official rather than a government official, King is not accountable to the public. He is not obligated to report to the legislature, nor is he subject to scrutiny by government agencies.
Some may wonder why King has such clout. The answer lies in his full endorsement by the president, which has sent a signal to the government and party alike.
If Ma has such confidence in King and wants him to have considerable and direct influence on government policy, he should make him premier. In this scenario, King would be subject to legislative scrutiny — and public assessment of his competence.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent